Nintendo ordered to pay $30 million in 3DS patent case

Console maker infringed on glasses-free 3D tech, judge says.

Nintendo has been ordered to pay $30.2 million in damages to Tomita Technologies after a jury found that the company infringed on a patent for glasses-free 3D displays. The ruling found that Nintendo used the technology in the Nintendo 3DS without permission.

The case revolves around a patent for a "Stereoscopic image picking up and display system based upon optical axes" filed by Sejiro Tomita, a former Sony employee, in 2003.

In arguments heard in a federal court last month, Tomita presented evidence that he had met with several Nintendo R&D engineers in 2003 to show off a prototype of his technology. Nintendo argued that Tomita was one of many potential vendors that it met with and that the patent was overly vague in a number of ways. The judge disagreed, noting in his decision numerous similarities between the 3DS' stereoscopic display and the one described in Tomita's patent.

The ruling could have been much worse for Nintendo; Tomita had originally asked for over $292 million, or $9.80 for every Nintendo 3DS sold.

In a statement, Nintendo said it was "confident that the result will be set aside" and that "the jury's verdict will not impact Nintendo's continued sales in the United States."

26 Reader Comments

If they'd stop trying to compete in a losing game (the console race) and started using their software IP to make awesome 3rd party games they wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing.

Just another reminder that the WiiU is Nintendo's Dreamcast.

I hope for a day when Nintendo games are playable on any system or computer.

It may be Nintendo's Dreamcast but at least the Dreamcast was a sweet console. The Wii U? Not so much. Either Nintendo has to get their game together (no pun intended), or will be going the wayside. I would love to see more quality 3rd party games from Nintendo as they really have not put out much in recent years worth getting to excited over.

As for the article, compared to some other lawsuits the settlement here is not so bad, and looks like it could have been a lot worse.

If they'd stop trying to compete in a losing game (the console race) and started using their software IP to make awesome 3rd party games they wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing.

Just another reminder that the WiiU is Nintendo's Dreamcast.

I hope for a day when Nintendo games are playable on any system or computer.

Tired and misguided, that's my summary of every Nintendo comment you make.

1. You don't have the best-selling console one generation and then give up the next.2. The Dreamcast was preceded by an onslaught of mediocre hardware that left consumers unwilling to invest in new hardware. (CD/32X/Saturn)

You want Nintendo games on every platform, I want Nintendo to keep true.

As far as this case goes, I don't have much background on it, but it's not hard to believe that an overly vague patent was granted. $30 million doesn't sound like a ridiculous damages figure.

If they'd stop trying to compete in a losing game (the console race) and started using their software IP to make awesome 3rd party games they wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing.

I really wouldn't want that. Things in the console space are limited enough with three major competitors. I would hate to see what happens when that drops down to two, both of whom aren't as willing to take major risks like Nintendo has.

2. The Dreamcast was preceded by an onslaught of mediocre hardware that left consumers unwilling to invest in new hardware. (CD/32X/Saturn)

And this is basically what happened.

The Wii is to Nintendo now what those hardware gaffs were. Gimmick garbage that ran Nintendo's goodwill dry.

No one thinks Nintendo and thinks great console any more. They think Nintendo and think bad games, gimmick controller, and the WiiU did nothing to change that perception.

Since the N64 the excitement for Nintendo products has steadily declined, even as they sold oh so many Wii consoles to plebeians with no interest in gaming at all.

The results from the 3DS put the writing on the wall, and the WiiU put it in flashing Neon. Nintendo's days as a successful console manufacturer are done.

Hardcore gamers might have though the Wii was gimmicky, but casual gamers and non gamers ate it up. They were the best selling console of last generation. You don't jump out of the console game after that. I bet Grandpas, soccer moms, and little girls are going to end up making the WiiU a success in the near future. Financially at least.

2. The Dreamcast was preceded by an onslaught of mediocre hardware that left consumers unwilling to invest in new hardware. (CD/32X/Saturn)

And this is basically what happened.

The Wii is to Nintendo now what those hardware gaffs were. Gimmick garbage that ran Nintendo's goodwill dry.

No one thinks Nintendo and thinks great console any more. They think Nintendo and think bad games, gimmick controller, and the WiiU did nothing to change that perception.

Since the N64 the excitement for Nintendo products has steadily declined, even as they sold oh so many Wii consoles to plebeians with no interest in gaming at all.

The results from the 3DS put the writing on the wall, and the WiiU put it in flashing Neon. Nintendo's days as a successful console manufacturer are done.

Your opinion is not supported by fact, Sega CD/32x/Saturn were not successful like the Wii. Your elitist attitude about gamers is foolish too. You may not have interest in Nintendo, but millions of others do. I consider PS3 and Xbox360 to be a waste, because I'm a PC gamer and they've not got enough compelling exclusives, but I don't dismiss the relative success they've had because I'm not blinded by my bias.

The results of the 3DS are encouraging, it's selling very well even though people predicted handheld gaming was dead. Wii U sales aren't amazing, but the big console-selling franchises haven't landed yet, so I think it's too early to forecast doom and gloom, especially since Nintendo has a good amount of cash on hand to weather a rocky start.

The Dreamcast analogy makes zero sense, if Nintendo rushes out a new console early in the Wii U's life due to weak Wii U sales, then we can all call that new console Nintendo's Dreamcast.

Only 30M? Why not 30B? Make it so poor use of patent rights is unprofitable.

Yes, stifle innovation more, that's a great idea.... Awarding someone fairly for their innovation is the heart of the patent system, it's become a shitshow, no doubt, but in this situation the damages seem fair.

Edit: Damages amount seems fair, assuming the patent isn't BS, which based on other comments it seems like it might be.

2. The Dreamcast was preceded by an onslaught of mediocre hardware that left consumers unwilling to invest in new hardware. (CD/32X/Saturn)

And this is basically what happened.

The Wii is to Nintendo now what those hardware gaffs were. Gimmick garbage that ran Nintendo's goodwill dry.

No one thinks Nintendo and thinks great console any more. They think Nintendo and think bad games, gimmick controller, and the WiiU did nothing to change that perception.

Since the N64 the excitement for Nintendo products has steadily declined, even as they sold oh so many Wii consoles to plebeians with no interest in gaming at all.

The results from the 3DS put the writing on the wall, and the WiiU put it in flashing Neon. Nintendo's days as a successful console manufacturer are done.

Yea, because the 3DS is just selling awful, they've only sold over 30 million units in just over two years. It's absolutely doing terrible. And those games! There's just nothing good for the system. Who wants to play kart racing with Mario?

Sheesh.

While the 3DS was underperforming in the beginning it has begun to outpace the DS(The 2nd best selling console ever BTW) in sales, has plenty of excellent games and many more coming in the future like Pokemon and Smash Bros.

Even if the Wii U ends up doing terriblely Nintendo can survive just fine off the 3DS like they did with the GBA and the GameCube. Personally I prefer mobile Nintendo consoles to their home ones.

It's not even close to the same situation Sega did with the CD, 32X and Saturn.

If they'd stop trying to compete in a losing game (the console race) and started using their software IP to make awesome 3rd party games they wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing.

I really wouldn't want that. Things in the console space are limited enough with three major competitors. I would hate to see what happens when that drops down to two, both of whom aren't as willing to take major risks like Nintendo has.

Honestly, Nintendo has the least motivation to leave the market of the big 3, as PS3 and Xbox360 weren't profitable. Hard to divide up the numbers perfectly because of other ventures wrapped up in each department, but their financial reports paint a decent picture:http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/07/xbox-36 ... im-future/

Even still, I don't think they should bail on the console market either, Sony has clearly learned from its mistakes and that's why they're not pushing the envelope with PS4 hardware.

They had 3D postcards back when I was a kid (back in the 1960s!) which used a plastic ridged covering to a picture that would send right-eyed info to the right eye and left-eyed info to the left to make the 3D image. That's all that the 3DS is doing.

Did you look at the patent? The only thing unique that I could find was an ultrasonic transmitter/receiver to detect the viewer's location, which the 3DS doesn't do.

This is ridiculous. Maybe the judge has never seen 3D before. They should have given hims some of those postcards.

It was my understanding that, after having multiple companies demonstrate 3D technology, that Nintendo opted to use stereoscopic screens developed by Sharp Technologies. Why would Tomita Technologies sue Nintendo instead of Sharp? More importantly, wouldn't Sharp, the creator of the infringing screens on the 3DS, be the company responsible for damaging Tomita's approved patents?

...2. The Dreamcast was preceded by an onslaught of mediocre hardware that left consumers unwilling to invest in new hardware. (CD/32X/Saturn)....

The hardware of the Dreamcast wasn't it's biggest failure. It was the ease at which people could hack and play pirated games.

Publishers and Developers were already getting rubbed by the anticipation of the PlayStation 2 and when news started circulating about games being pirated and sales being slumpy, the Publishers and Developers stopped making games for Dreamcast and moved onto PlayStation 2.

The PlayStation 2 hype hurt sales of the Dreamcast console because of the promises made for the PS2.

A really interesting comparison of the Wii U and the Dreamcast is the VMU and Gamepad. The Dreamcast memory units were like miniature game boys with a second-screen that can be used while playing games.0

In Sonic Shuffle each player's cards were hidden on the TV and displayed on each person's VMU in their controller.

In NFL 2K1 players could call plays from the VMU making it harder for the other team to anticipcate your plays.

14 years later and now second-screen is the biggest thing to hit gaming since motion control. It's one of the key features of the "next generation" consoles.

Up until 2009 I had collected 2 Dreamcast systems, 4 controllers, 8 VMUs, and about 150 games. I was constantly at GameStop snatching up all the used games I could find that I didn't own. I sold my collection in 2009. I miss the device and the games, but the nostalgia is probably better than actually going back to it. Last time I played a Dreamcast game I was really feeling the pain of the funky feel of the controller. Some of the games held up very well. e.g. Soul Calibur (my favorite fighting game ever) and Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2.

Nintendo had so much success with the Wii that they are probably in a position that allows them to survive another not-so-successful console cycle and make it to the next. They likely aren't at the point that they have to give up on hardware and move to strictly software similar to Sega.

It was my understanding that, after having multiple companies demonstrate 3D technology, that Nintendo opted to use stereoscopic screens developed by Sharp Technologies. Why would Tomita Technologies sue Nintendo instead of Sharp? More importantly, wouldn't Sharp, the creator of the infringing screens on the 3DS, be the company responsible for damaging Tomita's approved patents?

I agree that there needs to be a "first offender" clause or something. The patent holder shouldn't be able to sue everyone down the pipeline. The worst are when they attack the consumer, such as with the scanner/network patent trolls. However, if Nintendo contracted with Sharp to make specific screens, then the onus is on Nintendo who supplied the initial blueprints/designs, not the contracted manufacturer. I do not believe a manufacturer should be responsible to make sure every design that comes in isn't infringing a patent. That's on the design firm. The originator was Nintendo, who just so happened to have met with the guy who had the patent years earlier...

It was my understanding that, after having multiple companies demonstrate 3D technology, that Nintendo opted to use stereoscopic screens developed by Sharp Technologies. Why would Tomita Technologies sue Nintendo instead of Sharp? More importantly, wouldn't Sharp, the creator of the infringing screens on the 3DS, be the company responsible for damaging Tomita's approved patents?

Welcome to our wonderful patent system that allows us to sue contributory infringers, even the end users if this guy wanted, ignoring altogether the primary infringer. Seeing how Sharp is teetering on going out of business might have given him a chance to make more money.

It's also why MS went to the OEMs of android rather than Google - they'd argue they give it away for free hence owe no royalties and/or would fight it out to invalidate the patents as Moto did.

Agh, as much as I hate what patents have turned into, this actually was a primary purpose for them. Somebody invents "cool stuff," shops it around to businesses, and one business says "nah" then turns around and uses it in their products. No fair, pay up! (The other purpose for patents being you invent and sell your own products.)

Note - I'm not saying this is actually what happened or that his patent is good. But this type of situation is why patents are so hard to "fix". Any fix that does a good job smacking down patent trolls tends to also stomp on this type of inventor.

And the Dreamcast was a good console... But Sega burned people with too many flops before it, and then it got pirated to bits. That was its downfall. I remember Crazy Taxi fondly.

It was my understanding that, after having multiple companies demonstrate 3D technology, that Nintendo opted to use stereoscopic screens developed by Sharp Technologies. Why would Tomita Technologies sue Nintendo instead of Sharp? More importantly, wouldn't Sharp, the creator of the infringing screens on the 3DS, be the company responsible for damaging Tomita's approved patents?

I agree that there needs to be a "first offender" clause or something. The patent holder shouldn't be able to sue everyone down the pipeline. The worst are when they attack the consumer, such as with the scanner/network patent trolls. However, if Nintendo contracted with Sharp to make specific screens, then the onus is on Nintendo who supplied the initial blueprints/designs, not the contracted manufacturer. I do not believe a manufacturer should be responsible to make sure every design that comes in isn't infringing a patent. That's on the design firm. The originator was Nintendo, who just so happened to have met with the guy who had the patent years earlier...

That's not how I understand things to work. Nintendo is not the designer of the screen. Sharp is the designer of the screen. Think about it this way. You are HP and are designing a computer. You need a CPU. HP does not put out a design for a CPU and then contracts Intel to manufacture it.

Instead, they choose a CPU that has already been designed and manufactured by Intel to be used in their computers.

Same with Nintendo and the 3DS. Sharp's 3D LCD screens were already designed. All Nintendo did was just put out an order for the screens. The only thing Nintendo "designed" in the screen might be the size and how the connectors should be arranged (so it could assembled into the 3DS). But the way the 3D screens worked were already designed by Sharp.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.